Cagey B:American foreign policy is at the point where the international super-villain is the most reasonable voice here.

Well, swap "reasonable" for "self-interested" and you're getting somewhere. I'm personally suprised the Syrain conflict hasn't brought all the "end times" crazies out of the woodwork at this point. Mind you it's been a while since I spent much time tracking the beliefs of these nuts but I swear that int he old days at least they were convinced that the "Gog" mentioned in the Bible was Persia?Iran, and "Magog" was Russia, and I think an alliance of these two powers was supposed to signal the beginning of Armageddon or somesuch. Well, they ARE on the same side in the Syrian conflict...

groppet:The more I look at Syria the more I think "The only winning move is not to play" That civil war seems to be a fight of who can be the bigger ahole.

As a Redskins fan, whenever the Cowboys would play the Eagles and someone would ask me who I was rooting for, I'd reply "The injury report". In a fight between Assad and Hezbollah on one side, and Al-Qaeda and the very same folks that were shooting at the US in Iraq until the "Anbar awakening" drove them out on the other, I feel much the same way. Protect the civillians as best you can by setting up refugee zones in "no-fly"/No Shell areas and then left the boys with guns play "KIlkenny Cats" with each other

Wait, do zombies really go for eating arms? I mean, sure, they'll bite you on the arm to infect you, but then it always seems to be about the brains and the guts if you're a meal instead of a recruit. What benefit could the Free Syrian Zombie Army really get from us sending them a bunch of arms?

I guess I haven't followed the news on this close enough, or something.

Reasonable foreign policy should be self interested. I don't think it's in the United States' interest to funnel weapons to unknown parties that include radical jihadists. That hasn't worked out very well the last few times.

We've got a dictator committing atrocities, a fiercely divided internal resistance which has been decimated by the dictator's forces, and a whole bunch of jihadists-for-hire brought in by other countries who stand to gain from Syria's chaos. The dictator's been proven to use bio-chemical weapons in limited engagements, and the rebels are strongly rumored to have used them as well. The rebels also are pretty much confirmed to be engaging in rape & cannibalism.

This is one of those rare cases where the correct answer is "both side are just about equally bad. Send the red cross in with humanitarian aid, but don't actually enable either side".

Reasonable foreign policy should be self interested. I don't think it's in the United States' interest to funnel weapons to unknown parties that include radical jihadists. That hasn't worked out very well the last few times.

Lexx:We've got a dictator committing atrocities, a fiercely divided internal resistance which has been decimated by the dictator's forces, and a whole bunch of jihadists-for-hire brought in by other countries who stand to gain from Syria's chaos. The dictator's been proven to use bio-chemical weapons in limited engagements, and the rebels are strongly rumored to have used them as well. The rebels also are pretty much confirmed to be engaging in rape & cannibalism.

This is one of those rare cases where the correct answer is "both side are just about equally bad. Send the red cross in with humanitarian aid, but don't actually enable either side".

Or this might be the rare instance of, "Nuke it from orbit, just to be sure."

How do you tell the difference between one guy carrying an AK-47 to shop for groceries with one who does it for a living? How do you tell the difference when the same guy holding the same AK-47 uses it for shopping and for a paramilitary organization (because the accounting firm he used to work for in Aleppo is "no longer taking client requests")?

If they wear uniforms, they're probably not civilians, but many of the parties to this conflict don't wear uniforms. I also wonder if there are only two sides to this conflict (the meta-conflict, I mean - the Battle for Syria's Soul, not the Assads-vs-rebels).

How do you tell the difference between one guy carrying an AK-47 to shop for groceries with one who does it for a living? How do you tell the difference when the same guy holding the same AK-47 uses it for shopping and for a paramilitary organization (because the accounting firm he used to work for in Aleppo is "no longer taking client requests")?

If they wear uniforms, they're probably not civilians, but many of the parties to this conflict don't wear uniforms. I also wonder if there are only two sides to this conflict (the meta-conflict, I mean - the Battle for Syria's Soul, not the Assads-vs-rebels).

Listen up U.S. The 'enemy of my enemy CAN and most likely will STILL BE YOUR ENEMY' in the long run. Seriously, does every administration have to relearn this?

How do you tell the difference between one guy carrying an AK-47 to shop for groceries with one who does it for a living? How do you tell the difference when the same guy holding the same AK-47 uses it for shopping and for a paramilitary organization (because the accounting firm he used to work for in Aleppo is "no longer taking client requests")?

If they wear uniforms, they're probably not civilians, but many of the parties to this conflict don't wear uniforms. I also wonder if there are only two sides to this conflict (the meta-conflict, I mean - the Battle for Syria's Soul, not the Assads-vs-rebels).

You do it like this:

"people of Syria, the Cities of Aleppo and Homs" are now under the protection of the United Nations. This means that the international forces there will ensure that no forces from either side of the conflict with be allowed to approach withing a 15-mile radius of either city and there will be a 30-mile "no Fly Zone" enforced around both cities. Please understand that to enforce this peace, the UN forces will set up roadbloacks outside each city and all those hoping to gain entrance or refuge ineither city will be subject to search. All firearms or other weapons wil lbe confiscated from anyone seeking entrance to these cities. Anyone found with a weapon inside city limits wil be designated an enemy combatant and taken to a POW camp."

Magorn:"people of Syria, the Cities of Aleppo and Homs" are now under the protection of the United Nations.

That sounds an awful lot like destroying the cities (though not the actual buildings, just the day-to-day functioning, and effectively creating a ghetto out of a whole city) to save them. Also, ask Gaza how well being an effectively unarmed/non-military state has worked at keeping weapons out (hint: smuggling is easier there than on the US/Mexico border. Something something everyone's on someone's payroll).

Not that it's a bad idea, security-wise, but the leading problem I find is that now Aleppo and Homs are (may be) safe(r), but everywhere else is now your battlefield.

I think we need to let this one burn itself out. Let's do the best we can at getting noncombatants out, but outside influence will only keep this war going longer, not end it quicker.

Reasonable foreign policy should be self interested. I don't think it's in the United States' interest to funnel weapons to unknown parties that include radical jihadists. That hasn't worked out very well the last few times.

There's no particular reason for the US to get involved for Syria because realistically, there's no good outcome. Align with rebels? Why? There's no guarantee that they'll be any better than Assad. Align with Assad? Why?

Let them kill each other, and say "we will deal with whichever government is the legitimate government of Syria."

garkola:There's no particular reason for the US to get involved for Syria because realistically, there's no good outcome. Align with rebels? Why? There's no guarantee that they'll be any better than Assad. Align with Assad? Why?

Let them kill each other, and say "we will deal with whichever government is the legitimate government of Syria."

This. You start giving these guys armor killing tech and you damn well better believe it will be used on allies back in Iraq. I like the revolution, i just think that in this case the revolting are just as revolting as the revoltee.

Magorn:I'm personally suprised the Syrain conflict hasn't brought all the "end times" crazies out of the woodwork at this point. Mind you it's been a while since I spent much time tracking the beliefs of these nuts but I swear that int he old days at least they were convinced that the "Gog" mentioned in the Bible was Persia?Iran, and "Magog" was Russia, and I think an alliance of these two powers was supposed to signal the beginning of Armageddon or somesuch. Well, they ARE on the same side in the Syrian conflict...

Oh, they're out there. I've spoken with a woman once who was railing about the end times and said a nuclear detonation was going to happen in Damascus. We asked her when, she said she didn't know, but it was gonna happen soon.

fireclown:Wasn't there video of one of the Syrian resistance leaders eating the heart of a slain enemy? In the last few weeks?

No way, that was a government plant. Are those guns on the ground yet for our new Glorious AlliesTM? They need them now to defend themselves from a government who went all tyrannical. Why aren't they there?? Why do you hate freedom???

Lexx:We've got a dictator committing atrocities, a fiercely divided internal resistance which has been decimated by the dictator's forces, and a whole bunch of jihadists-for-hire brought in by other countries who stand to gain from Syria's chaos. The dictator's been proven to use bio-chemical weapons in limited engagements, and the rebels are strongly rumored to have used them as well. The rebels also are pretty much confirmed to be engaging in rape & cannibalism.

This is one of those rare cases where the correct answer is "both side are just about equally bad. Send the red cross in with humanitarian aid, but don't actually enable either side".

GRCooper:Lexx: We've got a dictator committing atrocities, a fiercely divided internal resistance which has been decimated by the dictator's forces, and a whole bunch of jihadists-for-hire brought in by other countries who stand to gain from Syria's chaos. The dictator's been proven to use bio-chemical weapons in limited engagements, and the rebels are strongly rumored to have used them as well. The rebels also are pretty much confirmed to be engaging in rape & cannibalism.

This is one of those rare cases where the correct answer is "both side are just about equally bad. Send the red cross in with humanitarian aid, but don't actually enable either side".

jaybeezey:garkola: There's no particular reason for the US to get involved for Syria because realistically, there's no good outcome. Align with rebels? Why? There's no guarantee that they'll be any better than Assad. Align with Assad? Why?

Let them kill each other, and say "we will deal with whichever government is the legitimate government of Syria."

This. You start giving these guys armor killing tech and you damn well better believe it will be used on allies back in Iraq. I like the revolution, i just think that in this case the revolting are just as revolting as the revoltee.

First off, we need a lot of scarfs, purple ones for the regime supporters, green ones for the rebels. This way we can tell them apart.Secondly, we need to stay the hell away from Syria. There are no good guys to root for, and no good will to be earned.

Reasonable foreign policy should be self interested. I don't think it's in the United States' interest to funnel weapons to unknown parties that include radical jihadists. That hasn't worked out very well the last few times.